Talking about experience

Last night at a dinner party, the topic came up again: “Obama doens’t have much experience!” And I found myself thinking about what’s enough.

First, consider Obama’s experience: 12 years in elected office at the state and federal level, and before that 16 years of work experience, if I’m counting correctly, in corporate, non-profit, and law positions.

Now, when you hear “experience” raised by any Republican who supported the current President, consider what that president brought to the table: an undistinguished business career followed by six years in state government, and absolutely nothing to suggest the slightest interest in or knowledge of foreign affairs. (We see the results.)

When you hear it from Democrats, consider Bill Clinton, who came to the White House with 14 years of state government experience – a little more than Obama.

Consider Ronald Reagan, who became President after an acting career and eight years in California state government.

The idea background for a president is an interesting subject and one that we could have a good discussion about. Does federal legislative experience count? It would provide a candidate with a good understanding of how things work on Capitol Hill, which is important. It also makes the candidate a complete insider, something Americans seems to dislike in their presidents (though, one notes, inside experience is usually considered a positive for any other role).

Perhaps executive experience at the state level counts – a demonstration that the candidate knows how to be effective in a role somewhat like that of president. We’ve certainly sent plenty of governors to Washintgon over the years: Clinton, Reagan, Bush, Nixon, Carter.

Looking at all of these presidents, it’s hard to draw to see too many patterns that suggest that any paticular background or length of tenure in government are related to success.

And, when you add up Obama’s experience – both in government and in other endeavors – it’s not really unlike that of the people we’ve elected in the past, and who’ve gone on to successful tenures in office.

So why do you think we’re hearing about it? And, more importantly, what’s the right preparation for the White House? Years and years in the Senate? Executive experience (which neither candidate has)? Something else?

86 Responses

Thank you for pointing out the obvious. Those presidential candidates with the least experience are promoted by the Right as “experienced,” while those candidates with experienced are mischaracterized as “unexperienced.”

It’s really the same old game of accusing the innocent of what you, yourself, are guilty of, to draw attention from the deficincies of your own position/candidate.

I consider any leadership role that requires building a working concensus of opinion as being gremain to the presidency. (Obama displays the traits of concensus building better than either Clinton or McCain have done.)

I consider corporate leadership, which is entirely dictatorial, to be completely inappropriate to the office of president.

Stephen, your experience with corporate leadership is at odds with mine. I’ve found that corporate leaders who are dictatorial are often ineffective at achieving corporate goals. Leaders who build consensus within a corporation achieve superior results. A President needs to be able to build consensus and know when to be dictatorial. Corporate experience is very applicable to the office of President, more so than working as a lawyer, a profession that contributes little to society as a whole.

more so than working as a lawyer, a profession that contributes little to society as a whole.

70-80% of our civil liberties are derived from tort actions. Until recently, and to some extent continuing today. lawyers were the writers of our laws, the representatives in our legislatures.

It is hard to think of any profession that contributes more than lawyers to the establishment and maintenance of a liberal democracy. Afterall, the very basis of liberal democracy is rule of law. And it is the profession attorneys and judges to determine the law.

A President needs to be able to build consensus and know when to be dictatorial.

The executive of the government is a president, not a dictator. That’s part of the problem with the current administration — he’s supposed to represent ALL the people, not act like a dictator in the interests of an unrepresentative minority.

“Those presidential candidates with the least experience are promoted by the Right as ‘experienced,’ while those candidates with experienced are mischaracterized as ‘unexperienced.’”

Stephen….This is an unfair characterization. Hillary was one of the ones who was questioning Obama’s experience and she’s far from the right. I think it happens on both parties (remember the criticisms of Dan Quayle?).

John…Do you think his age has something to do with it? Perhaps because he looks young and is passionate that some assume that he is inexperienced.

Hillary was one of the ones who was questioning Obama’s experience and she’s far from the right.

The difference being that Hillary Clinton actually HAS more experience in government than Barrack Obama. And she was married to a two term president and state governor, giving her the kind of behind the scenes experience of executive office that Obama has not had access to.

John, I know you probably roll your eyes when I send you a comment, but why do people still try to pretend that one party always does something when the other never does? It wasn’t too long ago that GWB’s “lack of experience” and “his early years” were the focus of the Democrat’s attacks when running against Gore. Are people of either party truly blind to the partisan political games that are played by BOTH?

“The difference being that Hillary Clinton actually HAS more experience in government than Barrack Obama. And she was married to a two term president and state governor, giving her the kind of behind the scenes experience of executive office that Obama has not had access to.”

Stephen C…It is good to see you again. Hillary has more experience than McCain? I don’t think you can count being married to a governor or President as years of experience. Granted she did do some things (some of which she misrepresented later ala Bosnia) and had more access to information then but I think that if that is your basis for comparison McCain has every reason to raise Obama’s experience (I think that if Laura Bush ran for office no one would consider her experience as first lady to be experience). Frankly, I’d much rather have McCain answering the 3AM call than Hillary (or Obama). Having said that, personally, like John, I think it is a moot point (of course you use everything to point to some right wing conspiracy…as I said before the same arguments were made by the democrats against Quayle as VP).

I don’t think the experience factor is that important for a president. It is conceivable that a lack of experience is actually a benefit.

And, there are two kinds of “experience” – domestic and foreign affairs. It is rare that any presidential candidate is strong in both areas. Not to be partisan, but McCain has both kinds of experience through his military service and his time in government. But, again, the question is – is this important?

Bush 41 had a fantastic resume of both kinds of experience.

Reagan had no foreign experience but he pulled off the greatest victory in foreign affairs that we will see in a long time.

As you mentioned, governors seem to be preferred by the electorate over senators and the like. I guess the reasoning is that they have some idea of how to run a large government organization, assuming they were successful in their governorships, as were Reagan, Bush, and I suppose Clinton.

Part of the problem is that we don’t know what kinds of problems will arise during the next four or eight years. Bush was certainly thrust into a presidency that he did not seek by the events of 9/11. I, personally, was comforted to know that he had people around him like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, etc., who had lots of experience in foreign affairs and major military campaigns. But, even that experienced group did not do a good job of execution.

I do not believe that we have had a president whose experience paid off since Lyndon Johnson was president. He was able to get some difficult legislation passed because of his past experience in the senate and his political savvy. But he failed miserably in foreign affairs even though his intentions were admirable.

I think the most important thing that affects a presidents ability to get anything done is the environment in washington. It is almost impossible to get anything done. Mandates don’t last long. Even when one party has had a fairly large majority in congress, still nothing seems to come from it.

Unike you, Joe, I don’t care WHO answers the imaginary 3:00AM call. Afterall, our current windshield-cowboy of a president sat looking stupid in a classroom photo-op for 15 minutes while our country was being attacked! And then spent the rest of the day hiding out in Air Force One.

And what was his studied response? Homeland Security — for the first time in U.S. history, the federal government has all the powers of a police state at it’s disposal. Invasion of Afghanistan. Invasion of Iraq. Kidnapping of the Haitian President. And threatening Iran, North Korea, Jamaica and Syria with invasion. His policies have also destroyed the Israeli/Palestinian Peace Plan; and enabled Russia to racially cleanse Chechnya of most of the men of fighting age, while allowing Russia to pursue imperialist policies in Ukraine, Belarus, Moldava, Dagestan, Abkhazia and Ossetia.

I think that if Laura Bush ran for office no one would consider her experience as first lady to be experience

And why should they? It’s not as if Laura Bush has taken nearly as active a role in government policy making as Hilary Clinton did during her husband’s presidency. Remember, Laura is the good, Christian wife, who knows her place. Hilary is the uppity, liberated woman who stands for all the ills that have ever befallen this country. (Sarcasm not directed at you, Joe, but at those who embrace this addled, chauvinistic view of women.)

McCains hostility toward GLBTs, his courting of the Religious Right, and his immigration and foreign policy positions are all enough to make it impossible for me to vote for him.

The Democratic candidate for president gets my vote because I am voting against the Republicans, not because I am necessarily in favor of the Democrats. The Republican Party has become the party of religious fanatics, hatred, racism, prejudice, xenophobia and war. The Republican Party has lost its way.

“of course you use everything to point to some right wing conspiracy. I have seen no evidence that John does this.”

Stephen C…That statement was directed at you. My point was that I, like John, do not think Obama’s experience should be an issue for McCain or Hillary. He has enough. You on the other hand are saying that it is OK for Hillary to say it but not McCain (who has more experience than Hillary). If Republicans do say it, you attribute it to some right wing conspiracy to misrepresent Obama. I don’t think you’re being consistent.

John, to answer your questions: I think we’re hearing about experience because it is a way for McCain to turn his age into an advantage. He can highlight his years and years of public service and paint Obama as too young and inexperienced for the job.

Obama doesn’t mind this because he can turn that the sam way he used Clinton’s experience critique–by claiming that judgment is more important than experience.

What do I think is important? The ability to see multiple solutions to a problem and to compromise intelligently. I don’t think experience is linked to those qualities explicitly, and I think both candidates show some promise in that regard. (I do continue to think Obama is the better choice for president.)

You on the other hand are saying that it is OK for Hillary to say it but not McCain (who has more experience than Hillary).

You are misrepresenting me, Joe, for I never said any such thing. I merely agreed that the right have often proposed candidates as having more experience than their opponents when the opposite was true.

When you brought up that Clinton said she had more experience than Obama, as if to say the Democrats do it too, I pointed out that Clinton was justified to say that, because she actually does have more experience with executive power than does Obama.

I have made no comments regarding McCains experience, vis-a-vis Obama. I have made no comments that candidates ought to villify each other over their lack of experience. I merely agreed with John that Republicans have a history of blaming the innocent for what they themselves are guilty of.

The Christian right has “an agenda.” That agenda includes deceiving the public about science so as to substitute science with Christian dogma in our public schools (see Focus On the Family’s website and The Wedge Document).

That agenda includes opposing civil liberties for GLBTs, illegal aliens and women’s rights. The emerging Christian right was key in defeating the Women’s Rights Amendment to the Constitution. The Christian right has also proposed laws that would make it a felony to be an illegal alien or to even assist illegal aliens.

And while I generally look down my nose condescendingly on those who embrace conspiracy theories, this is a case where there actually is a conspiracy. Go to their websites, read their essays, go to their churches — the conspiracy is real.

Every time a Christian talks about how their religion is under seige in America, it is a lie intended to mislead the public.

Christianity is not under siege, no, it is everyone else that is under siege from the right wing Christians.

Joe, you are letting your prejudice in favor of Christians blind you to the truth in my writings.

“[P]ain is a marvelous purifier. . . It is not necessary to beat the child into submission; a little bit of pain goes a long way for a young child. However, the spanking should be of sufficient magnitude to cause the child to cry genuinely.”

– James Dobson, “Dare To Dicipline”

“Some strong-willed children absolutely demand to be spanked, and their wishes should be granted. . . [T]wo or three stinging strokes on the legs or buttocks with a switch are usually sufficient to emphasize the point, ‘You must obey me.’”

– James Dobson, The Strong Willed Child

“Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage. It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the Earth.”

– James Dobson, The Daily Oklahoman 23 Oct 2004

“[T]he boy’s father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son’s maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.”

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. (Darwin 1872) [1]

According to Richard Dawkins, this quote is taken out of context[2][3][4] because Darwin explains the development of the eye in that “some simple animals have only “aggregates of pigment-cells…without any nerves … [which] serve only to distinguish light from darkness.” The full quote, in context, reads:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural

[page 187]

selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.[5]

[edit] The Descent of Man

In Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, to support of the claim that the theory of evolution inspired Nazism, Ben Stein attributes the following statement to Charles Darwin’s book The Descent of Man:[6]

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

Stein stops there, then names Darwin as the author in a way that suggests that Darwin provided a rationale for the activities of the Nazis. However, the original source shows that Stein has significantly changed the text and meaning of the paragraph, by leaving out whole and partial sentences without indicating that he had done so. The original paragraph (page 168) … and the very next sentences in the book state:[7][6]

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.[8]

The Expelled Exposed website also points out that the same misleading selective quotation from this passage was used by anti-evolutionist William Jennings Bryan in the 1925 Scopes Trial, but the full passage makes it clear that Darwin was not advocating eugenics. The eugenics movement relied on simplistic and faulty assumptions about heredity, and by the 1920s evolutionary biologists were criticizing eugenics. Clarence Darrow, who defended the teaching of human evolution in the Scopes trial, wrote a scathing repudiation of eugenics.[9]

In Richard Weikart’s 2004 book From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany he claims:

Darwin clearly believed that the struggle for existence among humans would result in racial extermination. In Descent of Man he asserted, “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.”[10][11][12][13][14]

According to talk.origins, this is a common creationist quote mine.[15] When Darwin referred to “race” he meant “varieties,” not human races.[16] In the passage “there is nothing in Darwin’s words to support (and much in his life to contradict) any claim that Darwin wanted the “lower” or “savage races” to be exterminated. He was merely noting what appeared to him to be factual, based in no small part on the evidence of a European binge of imperialism and colonial conquest during his lifetime.”[17] Darwin’s passage, in full context, reads:

The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies–between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.[8]

Executive experience is the kind of experience that is being discussed. Being alive is experience but it does not qualify you for office.

Obama’s experience as a legislator and community organizer does not make him the most experienced candidate in the race. McCain has significantly more Federal experience as well as executive experience (ie leadership experience) through his years in the Navy. There is a reason that the majority of our modern Presidents have either had military or governmental executive experience (ie heading a federal agency or being a governor of a state).

People like to point out that people like Lincoln didn’t have a lot of experience. That is true. But the federal bureacracy was a small portion of what it is today and the reality is that it requires experience in dealing with large organization. Community organizing and lecturing at a law school is frankly not enough.

Stephen C…I apologize if you feel misrepresented. That was not my intent. I was simply attempting to point out the irony that it is OK if a Democrat like Hillary questions Obama’s experience (especially if she has more) but it is evidence of a right wing conspiracy if Republicans question Obama’s experience (even if the person who they are promoting for office has more). However, I appreciate the opportunity to interact with you on this topic. Regarding the others, your quotations do not make sense to me. I think that spanking children is a good thing. I do not believe in child abuse but nothing that Dr. Dobson mentions borders on child abuse.

James Dobson, a major leader of the Christian right, supports the physical abuse of children by instructing parents to beat their children with “sufficient magnitude to cause the child to cry genuinely.”.

James Dobson, the leader of Focus of the Family, supports the sexual abuse of children. What other reason would a grown male have for joining a boy naked in the shower for the sole purpose of the child “noticing” his larger penis?

James Dobson is a sexist who believes girls are incapable of playing catch, being rough, or of pounding a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard.

James Dobson makes up his own facts, like homosexuals are not monogamous, a blatantly fictional statement, and makes outrageous claims, like homosexuals “will destroy the Earth” — the entire planet, oceans, mantle, core and all?

The man’s a blithering idiot. The kind of loser that could only achieve success by oppressing his fellow citizens, McCarthy-like.

“The Republican Party has become the party of religious fanatics, hatred, racism, prejudice, xenophobia and war. The Republican Party has lost its way”

Amen to that, Stephen C. (And Joe, is it ok for a non-believer to use the word “amen”, or is that considered blasphemous?)

Certainly Obama – a Columbia and Harvard Law grad – has a far better formal education than McCain, who graduated fifth from the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy. His experience as an instructor in constitutional law ought to give him a much better understanding of the many important legal principles that have been ignored by Bush, with the approval of McCain and so many other Republicans, including our very own John Cornyn.

But setting aside the number of working years each has, isn’t judgment as important as work experience? McCain has consistently been in lock-step with the (thugs, bigots, know-nothings, knuckle-draggers – fill in the appropriate words) of the Radical Right, though he pretends to occasionally be a maverick.

I’ve said before that I cannot comprehend how any candidate hopes to win by being at odds with a majority of the electorate on the major issues of the day. But it certainly wouldn’t be the first time we voters ignored our obvious self-interests, nor that we learned to regret it.

Do you get in the bath with your children, stark naked, showing off your larger penis?

Call me a prudish Victorian, but I did not grow up in a household where grown men got naked to join children in the bath.

I think that spanking children is a good thing.

James Dobson is not talking about a simple spanking. He is talking about breaking a child’s spirit and beating them with “two or three stinging strokes on the legs or buttocks with a switch sufficient to emphasize the point, ‘You must obey me.’”

It astonishes me that you would support assualting children with a weapon, and then deny GLBTs the right to raise children in loving households that do not beat and sexually abuse children.

–

The quotes from Wikipedia are just a few examples of the right wing Christian conspiracy you insist doesn’t exist. These right wing Christians intentionally falsify data, misrepresent scientists and mischaracterize anyone who disagrees with them.

Unfortunately, most Conservative Christians are so ignorant of science, the scientific method, and critical thinking skills, that they’re apt to believe any adled nonsense they are told by lying, thieving, whoring right wing Christian leaders.

(With all the news stories about Conservative Christian leaders and politicians being caught in sex scandals, drug scandals, gay sex scandals, bribery and out right theft and embezzlement, my accusation is well supported by current events.)

As lame as McCain is, has anyone other than myself seen the ironic correlation of McCain becoming the nominee when he was all but dead and the fact he was the only one willing to support the war endlessly if necessary?

My dad taught me to follow the money when I could not understand something. So now I must bring out the conspiracy in me. The big money people in this country control us even if we deny this fact. The defense contractors/suppliers, big oil, and big banks pull the strings of everyday life, and all are Republican. They have had their way so long they can’t conceive the problems we have has been from their own creation. They have backed McCain from the get go until others have followed suit.

So I contend that if you follow the money you can see how the Republicans ended up with McCain. There is no money to be made with a leader that values peace. There is money to be made with a gladiator. Rome eventually fell. Will we?

Experience? Well I’d like SOME in the Oval office. To date Obama’s experience is a first term senator, he has no foreign policy or military experience and is hardly in a position, experience wise, to be given the car keys to the U.S. Government. He has shown no experience in creating a bi-partisan environment. And why I would ask, why are you talking about Bush? He’s not running, John McCain is.

From experience in the areas of importance to our country at this critical juncture McCain’s experience drawfs that of young Obama. McCain’s background is in the military, he understands foreign policy, has experience there.

Additionally if you’ve taken the time to visit the Obama website and to see his plans for the country I am not encouraged to find even more government entitlement programs that will, without question, require a massive tax increase on all Americans. While Obama offers assurance that the tax increase will only be on those making in excess of 250K I would ask what % of our population is that? The top 1-3%? How can Obama hope to gain enough dollars from that small group to finance everything he is offering and planning?

Contrast that plan w/what McCain proposes..no pork, no increased spending without offsetting cuts and no increase in taxes. I don’t know about you but I’ve enjoyed the Bush tax cuts. It is nice to have more to spend, save and invest.

Prior to elected office Obama spent very few years practicing law and has always been upfront about his plans to run for office. He has planned to be a career politician. That is his goal.

Organizational and analytical skills rank high if a person is to be an effective leader. To navigate higher education you have to have both as well as intellect to compete with peers. Maybe McCain got outworked at the Naval Academy. Not so good either. As others have indicated, being able to get people to work together is when change becomes possible. That is where inspiration and belief throttle resistance. A varied workplace experience is essential. Whether you were able or inable to pass legislation in Congress has little to do with leading the country. Whether you are perceived to be authentic or as a phony has more to do with effective leadership than all the roll calls in Washington. McCain has been in the silo of government service all of his life, including early family. Silos don’t have windows. As a POW he endured much and is honored as he should be. But he doesn’t know a lot outside of the silo, and what he does read, such as the overwhelming negative sentiments regarding Iraq, he disregards. His great experience in government is his greatest negative.

It is my conclusion that most people will count or discount a politician’s experience based on whether they support that person. In Obama’s case, he was a state senator for 12 years and has spent two years in the US Senate. Since coming to Washington he hasn’t really accomplished anything of importance, except win the Democratic nomination. He is an excellent speaker, I grant you, and can whip up a crowd into a lather with all of his statements about “change” and “It is our time.” But time for what? When you examine the few specifics that he has proposed, it sounds like socialism to me and I do not want any part of it.

The other day he actually said that he would require oil companies to use their huge profits to invest in alternative energy sources. The president, any president, of the United States does not have that authority. He cannot order any private company to spend its money in any particular way. It sounds like a wonderful idea if you hate high gas prices, but it is meaningless if he doesn’t have the power. I am reminded of the 1982 governor’s election in Texas, when Mark White promised that if elected he would reduce our electric bills. He had no authority over electric rates (that was up to the Public Utilities Commission) and after winning election admitted as much. He was kicked out four years later because he couldn’t deliver on that promise and made a lot of other people mad with his education reforms (some of which we still live with today and some of which were actually good).

When I examine the people with whom Sen. Barack Obama has associated with in the past politically, they are a collection of radical leftists who cannot let go of failed socialist ideas that have wrecked the economies of other countries.

I don’t deny that our country has problems with oil prices and health care. But I am very afraid of the solutions Sen. Obama proposes for these problems.

Nothing is going to cure the high price of oil except drilling for more oil in places we haven’t drilled before (which the oil companies would do if we allowed them). That is simple global economics. There are tens of billions of barrels of oil left untapped in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, off the coast of California and off the coast of Florida. But the same people who complain about the high price of oil are the same people who protest drilling in these areas for environmental/asthetic reasons. Even Brazil has recently found enough oil off its shores to be energy independent for decades to come, even without developing alternative fuel sources (they are one of the biggest users of homegrown biofuels, too).

Our health care system has not failed, as so many on the left and in the main stream news media claim. It does have its problems, but it actually works well for the vast majority of Americans. So any proposal that radically alters the current structure is not only dangerous, but foolhardy.

I can go on down the list of real or imagined problems faced by our country. The fact is, government is not the answer to most of them. Private enterprise, given time and freedom to innovate, will solve the real ones.

Btw, John, Richard Nixon was never governor of anything. He did run for Governor of California in 1966, but was defeated by Jerry Brown. He came back two years later and won the presidency. He was a longtime member of Congress and then became Dwight Eisenhower’s vice president. That was his political experience. And despite Watergate, he was one of the more effective presidents we’ve ever had in foreign affairs.

As for the current President Bush, he gets a very bad rap from the left and the main stream news media about how he has handled foreign affairs, but I venture to say that in the long run, history will vindicate him to a large extent. And prior to politics, he was quite successful in business, rising to managing partner of the Texas Rangers (and making a historically bad franchise profitable for its owners). His six years as governor of Texas were full of accomplishments that still benefit us today and he was a very bipartisan person. Only after going to Washington, where politicians eat their young to stay in power, did things get difficult for him.

Both political parties in Washington are so determined to grab and hold onto power that they will never credit their opponents for the good that they do and always emphasize the worst. And if they can’t find anything really bad about an opponent, they will just make it up if they have to.

The political dynamic in this country does need to change, but I don’t think electing Barack Obama is the answer. Unfortunately, right now we only have two choices, and he’s one of them. You’d think that out of 300 million people, we could come up with some better choices.

Hillary was one of the ones who was questioning Obama’s experience and she’s far from the right.

The difference being that Hillary Clinton actually HAS more experience in government than Barrack Obama. And she was married to a two term president and state governor, giving her the kind of behind the scenes experience of executive office that Obama has not had access to.

***

Since when did pillow talk qualify as experience?

In the behind the scenes executive office experience scenario described, Monica Lewinsky has more experience than does Obama…

Don’t forget this is only Senator Clinton’s second elected term at any level of government. As first lady, she could champion all the causes she wanted but had little say in any administrative decisions because she had no security clearance.

Both McCain and Obama are career politicians. Once each has a chance to address the other point-by-point on specific matters a more informed decision can be made. Thus far, with all of the in-fighting in the democratic primary to secure the nomination, McCain has been bombarded by general accusations which would have been a waste of time to address not knowing which candidate he was to face.

Could I make a little modification to this sentence submitted earlier by Stephen C?

“The Republican Party has become the party of religious fanatics, hatred, racism, prejudice, xenophobia and war….”

(Whether I agree with you or not) I would prefer if you said “Religious fanatics, haters, prejudiced people and xenophobes are members of the Republican Party”. There are a lot of people who support the Republican Party who are none of those things.

I’m curious as to what you do for a living. I believe it would strongly affect your ability to say, “It is hard to think of any profession that contributes more than lawyers to the establishment and maintenance of a liberal democracy. Afterall, the very basis of liberal democracy is rule of law. And it is the profession attorneys and judges to determine the law.” with a straight face.

I am a businessman, computer programmer, accountant, salesman, historian and scholar. (I have had full careers in each of these fields.)

I have been studying law, as I am considering a career as an attorney. Unfortunately, my husband’s immigration issues are likely going to force us to emigrate as refugees, so I’ve been that is resolved.

As a Jew, and a Talmudic scholar, I have always had a tremendous respect for lawyers and the law. And I have always loved the logic, critical thinking, and political compromises that go into the law. My favorite branches of secular law are constitutional law, estate planning, and business contracts.

Without lawyers, there would be no due process, there would be no rule of law, and none of us would be protected from the capricious nature of power. It is a profession no civilized society can do without.

I suppose the millions of uninsured children are a feature of a successful healthcare system. Who knew?

who cannot let go of failed socialist ideas that have wrecked the economies of other countries.

France, Britain, Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Canada and the United States are all socialist countries — the USA is the most socialist country in world history — and all these nations are numbered among the worlds wealthiest economies.

history will vindicate him to a large extent.

I think, centuries from now, historians are going to point to this presidency as having planted the seeds for the eventual decline, and possible fall, of the republic.

This administration, for the first time in U.S. history, has given the federal government all the tools necessary to create a police state. Some president, one day, is going to use those powers, and that may very well be the end of the republic.

Further, this administration has watched over, and in large part contributed to, the greatest transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy in American history.

I don’t think historians are going to have very much nice to say about this president, any more than they have to say about his adled ancestor, Pierce — accounted amongst the worst presidents by many historians.

“I have been studying law, as I am considering a career as an attorney.”

That explains your statement. I have never met anyone outside of the legal profession who believes that lawyers are productive members of society. My grandfather was a lawyer when it was still a reputable profession. He would be horrified to see what it has become.

Just suppose for a moment that a President makes a decision which history decides is in the best interest of the country although public sentiment is against it. I realize that is a difficult concept to grasp as most all of the opinions formed in this country seem to be molded by the media.

While I agree GW has been dogmatic our current success in Iraq points to the positives of letting the military run the war and not politicians(you’d think we’d get that one right away eh?) I only wish GW had made that decision at the beginning of the war.

The shrillness of the left has already been documented on video as being a calculated move to get votes. Until we see some sort of bi-partisanship in the country we’re just in for a roller coaster ride of democrat control/republican control neither of which has proved to be very good for the country.

Given the state of the economy, the energy problem, the war and foreign policy I really think that handing a mandate to one party is not in the best interest of the country. I’m trying to think of a time in current history where having a manjority party in both congress and the white house has worked well for america. Can someone point me to that?

Tools for a police state? Perhaps you can detail for me how these tools have been used to take away any rights of Americans? It is not without precedent that in time of war that concessions have been made to security over freedom. And those were in a day and age where an attack upon the United States was considerably more difficult than it is today.

Count me as someone who is not a lawyer, and has never studied law outside of a media law class for a communication degree, as someone who thinks lawyers are productive members of society.

Just like in every profession, there are bad seeds — there are bad cops, doctors, teachers, salespeople, politicians, etc. — but that doesn’t mean those entire professions are disgusting or worthless. To make such a sweeping generalization is uneducated at best.

To equate nonproductive with disgusting and worthless is presumptive, at best, or uneducated.

I’m a CPA, and in the post-Enron atmosphere have personally experienced what happens to your reputation when a handful of professionals don’t follow the rules. Fortunately, my profession has bounced back.

I do mostly personal income tax work, a service that many consider non-productive. I’m not going to argue whether it is or isn’t, I’ll just concede that what I do is the result of lawyers and politicians making the tax code more complex every year. It contributes to my attitude about lawyers.

I’ll stand by my original opinions — lawyers aren’t productive members of society, and the legal profession is no longer a reputable profession. My “sweeping generalization” is not uneducated; it is based on a twenty-five year career of dealing with lawyers.

You said your grandfather would be horrified at the profession, which to me is about the same as saying disgusted. And to say that someone is an unproductive member of society is, in effect, saying they are worthless, at least in my book.

To say that all lawyers are not productive members of society is, quite simply, stupid. You are basing your generalization on your work with one small group of lawyers.

I dare you to tell my former professor that she is an unproductive member of society and her work is disreputable. She is working pro bono representing a man who has been on death row for a crime he did not commit.

I dare you to tell my friend that she is an unproductive member of society and her work is disreputable.

She represents prison guards and police officers who have been accused of misconduct by prisoners, and in most of the cases the complaints are baseless.

I dare you to tell to my other friend that he is an unproductive member of society and his work is disreputable. He saved me thousands of dollars, that as a teacher I couldn’t afford, when a company tried to charge me for services that were needed due to their own neglect.

I could go on and on listing situations where lawyers have helped make our society better. I could also easily say that all CPAs are worthless and disgusting humans. The one I’ve known best ran a shabby operation and abused his wife and child. But I don’t, because in almost all instances, sweeping generalizations based on a knowledge of a very small segment of a population are ignorant.

Imagine a world without lawyers. Imagine a world with courts of law. Imagine a world without due process. Imagine a world without protection from government power. Imagine a world without protection from corporate avarice. Imagine a world where criminals reign.

This is the world without lawyers.

I would say simply imagining their absence is enough to establish the tremendous worth and productiveness of this profession.

Your argument that lawyers are productive members of society appears to be based on your experience with a handful of lawyers. In your own words, that appears to be a sweeping generalization based on a knowledge of a very small segment of the population. I’ll assume that yours is one of those that you consider not to be ignorant.

Here’s a suggestion. Ask the next dozen or so people you meet if they believe the legal profession is a reputable one. Ask them if they think lawyers are productive members of society. I believe there are more that agree with me than with you.

Most Americans believe the Earth was created in 4004 BC. Most Americans believe a man was born of a virgin and rose from the dead. Most Americans believe that the Earth stopped rotating for hours, giving the Israelites more daylight to defeat their enemies. Most Americans believe in angels and demons. Most Americans believe a fish swallowed a human being whole and then spit him up on the shore, alive and well, weeks later.

Forgive me if I don’t judge the worth and productiveness of the legal profession based on what the vulgar crowd feels.

I prefer to make my judgements based on the 5,000+ years of recorded history and productive work of the legal profession, like the Mosaic Law, the Redactions of Ezra and Nechemia, the Code of Humurabi (sp?), the Justinian Codex, the English Common Law, the German Basic Law, and even good old fashioned American jurisprudence.

Actually, I acknowledged that there were bad seeds just like in every profession. In doing so, it should be clear that I believe there are good and bad lawyers. So, I have not made a sweeping generalization but have only said that I believe your generalization, that lawyers (not some, or many, or a few, but “lawyers,” so I assume you mean all lawyers, and you have yet to correct that) are unproductive members of society in a disreputable profession, is incorrect.

Before I respond to your last post, I invite you to answer a question for me:

What should be the punishment for a major department store that, for approximately two weeks, violates federal law by printing the expiration date and/or more than the last five digits of a customer’s credit or debit card on the customer’s receipt?

What should be the punishment for a major department store that, for approximately two weeks, violates federal law by printing the expiration date and/or more than the last five digits of a customer’s credit or debit card on the customer’s receipt?

Without lawyers, how would you try them? Without lawyers, how would they defend themselves? Without lawyers, how would the law they are breaking by crafted?

It seems to me, without a legal profession, and the legal institutions they [wo]man, this whole scenario wouldn’t even be possible.

Without lawyers, there would be no credit — how can you make people pay without the legal mechanisms to do so? Well, I suppose they could send a couple of thugs to your office to beat the kappas out of you, if that’s the kind of world you really want to live in.

Without lawyers, there would be no realty market. Well, there would be, it would just operate by different rules. Instead of selling your home to the highest bidder, the bidder with the biggest army of thugs would simply come over and take it from you. Your wife would probably get raped, and your children probably be stolen and enslaved in the process, but you’d have gotten rid of your home.

Without lawyers, there would be no labor code. Employers could enslave their workers, chain them to their desks and pay them with threats and beatings instead of wages commensurate with their work.

Without lawyers, women better kick their shoes off and get back into the kitchen and the bedroom. There would be no legal protections for women for there would be no legal ANYTHING with which to protect them.

Without lawyers, the police become a brutal force of criminals — a law unto themselves, with no real oversight. And, of course, instead of being innocent until proven guilty — a lawyer’s invention — suspects will be guilty because the arresting police officer says so. The arresting officer will be judge, jury and executioner. (Who is to try a police officer that executes suspects, at his whim, when there is no legal system with which to hold the trial?)

I was just asking for your opinion, not a statement of fact. However, under federal law, if the store does what I described, you are entitled to $100 for the infraction. Your windfall may be increased to $1,000 if the infraction was willful. You don’t have to prove damages, all you have to do is prove that it happened.

I found this out yesterday when I got home from work. There was a postcard describing a class action suit against a retailer that failed to comply with this law for a couple of weeks several months ago. I’ll be entitled to a coupon for $10, $20, or $30 because of this infraction. The lawyers get $150,000.

Don’t bother trying to convince this this is right and just. I’m not buying it. In fact, I suggest you navigate over to Mary Flood’s legal blog to see what she says about this kind of suit.

Your response about a world without lawyers reminds me of an old Saturday Night Live skit starring Phil Hartman. His son didn’t want to go to school one morning. By the end of the skit, when Hartman was finished connecting the dots of the consequences of his son’s decision, the Russians had taken over the United States.

I’m bailing out of this discussion with this post. I’m going to rejoin the hoi polloi, since I’m apparently too uneducated to follow the discussion.

Just do me a favor. Ask some of the vulgar crowd what they think about the reputation of the legal profession. Ask them if they think lawyers are productive members of society. I believe you’ll find that many more of them side with me than you.

I’m bailing out of this discussion with this post. I’m going to rejoin the hoi polloi, since I’m apparently too uneducated to follow the discussion.

Yay, whining!

I am apparently too uneducated to follow the logic that says that class action suits are problematic because they provide minimal rewards for plaintiffs but lots of fees for lawyers (I agree that this is a problem), therefore law is a horrible profession.

I’ll be entitled to a coupon for $10, $20, or $30 because of this infraction. The lawyers get $150,000.

Firstly, damages in class action suits are not generally intended to reward the plaintiff, they are intended to punish the defendant and to act as a deterent. The purpose is rarely to impose such a huge monetary punishment that it might result in pushing the defendant into bankruptcy proceedings.

Secondly, attorney’s take a huge risk in class actions suits. They are rarely compensated until after the defendant starts paying their fines, which could take years. (And they only get paid if they win. If they lose, they then have to pay the defendant’s legal costs too!) In the meantime, they invest lots of money on staff, legal filings, depositions, research and investigations, etc. What motivation would an attorney have to risk their own money to pursue a class action suit they only get paid for if they win? The motivation is a big payoff! It’s called capitalism.

If attorney’s weren’t sufficiently rewarded for the risks they have to take to pursue class action suits, there would be no class actions suits. And in such a case, you would get NOTHING, instead of being “entitled to a coupon for $10, $20, or $30 because of this infraction.”

For that measly $150,000 the attorney received from the settlement, how much of that was netted as profit? After the attorney paid his expenses (staff, rent, electricity, phones, transportation, research, court filings, etc.) Not to mention the cost of his own time working on the case — the attorney does deserve to get paid for their efforts, don’t they?

If the attorney worked on this case for an entire year, and he had only one secretary (most legal secrataries in Los Angeles earn at least $50,000 a year) — that leaves $100,000 for the attorney. Now subtract rent, which would be a minimum of $35,000 a year for a dump. Now we’re down to $65,000. And we’re not done yet. For electricity and other utilities for his office are problably running him at least $10,000 a year, leaving $55,000. He’s had to pay for court filings and other legal fees, so you can subtract another $10,000, leaving $45,000. Now subtract the cost of communications (Internet, office phones, cellulars, etc.) and that’s another $10,000, at a minimum, leaving $35,000. And we still haven’t covered all the expenses of his office or of filing this suit. That measly $150,000 might not even cover the attorney’s expenses for the case — the attorney might have lost money!

I find it funny that Stephen thinks highly of lawyers and says he is studying law himself. The thing is that he could not tell the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor, a rather basic concept even for laymen. If that is how he thinks he can practice law, he will simply add to the low regard most have for lawyers. I know of a few very good and honorable lawyers, unfortunately, they seem to be the minority in that profession.

This from a man who freely admitted to going armed with weapons to a peacful march with the intent of criminally assaulting them. Randy freely admits that only the presence of the police prevented him from committing felony assault and battery.

And the man has the hypocracy to support laws that would make illegal aliens felons, and those that feed them felons, because they are breaking the law.

I see that Stephen has still not figured out what a felony is and the fact that there is NO such thing as felony assault and battery. Also he assumes that I had weapons of some sort which would reasonably expected to cause severe bodily harm which is the definition of aggravated battery, and which IS a felony. At most had the cops not been there it would have developed into a regular brawl, which by the way is NOT any kind of assualt and battery legally speaking, since both parties are guilty of the same thing. Thus there is NO assault and battery since both parties willingly engaged in it. Had the Klan declined to take part, THEN the police could at best have charged me with misdemeanor battery. Usually a slap on the wrist, and in Texas usually nothing at all if no serious injury was sustained. Cuts and bruises do not count. A couple of days in a hospital would count towards a more severe misdemeanor sentence.

I hope that he will read some real law for a change. Of course, in CA, speaking harshly may well count for being a felony. They are a bit odd out there, so I cannot speak for their laws. It is a culture which has become over lawyered to an incredible degree, which is one of the reasons I left.

While I agree that lawyers do serve some useful functions in society, tort law has developed to such a degree that it is nothing more than legal extortion, as it is being practiced by many lawyers.

This is true in liability law. It is cheaper for a company to pay damages than to fight a lawsuit in court. In my career field of aviation, lawyers single handedly destroyed the production of light aircraft. Before the blitz of lawsuits arising from aircraft accidents, the US used to produce about 20,000 light planes per year. The high cost of liability insurance put an end to almost all of such production.

One case is illustative. Piper Aircraft was owned by Mr Millar who decided that he could not produce planes at an affordable price if he carried liability insurance, so he went without and vowed to fight ALL suits. An owner of a Super Cub aircraft made 30 years ago decided that he was going to do an illegal modification to his plane and put a camera mount in the front seat to film his towing a glider. The owner of the private air park, where the plane was, heard about the project, and forbid the pilot to do the towing and modification since it violated all the rules.

The pilot of the Cub decided to ignore the owners order, so early one morning, he got his plane and glider out, set up on the runway to take off. The owner of the airpark saw what was going on, and drove the gasoline truck onto the runway to block it so he could not do the illegal operation. The Cub is a tandem seat taildragger and is normally flown from the rear seat when there is only one on board. The pilot hops into the plane without looking down the runway, and since he had the mount blocking the limited forward visibility, he started to takeoff. At the point when he had enough speed to raise the tail, he saw the fuel truck too late to stop. He of course, plowed into the truck and was severely injured to such a degree he was confined to a wheelchair. He not only sued the airpark owner who had limited funds, but he also sued Piper aircraft for making an unsafe airplane. He alleged that ALL taildraggers are unsafe, despite the fact that they were the original configuration since the Wright brothers. The pilot won millions of dollars from Piper Co. Mr Millar simply turned the keys to the factory over to him and Piper went out of business.

All the other manufacturers did the same shortly after that terminating their light aircraft production lines. Cessna refused to even restart their production line for the US Air Force when they asked them to resume production for the T-41 which was the primary plane for their student pilots, which was a militarized version of their popular C-172. It was only after Clinton signed the reform bill to change the product liability laws for aircraft that Cessna started producing light aircraft again. Even with the change, liability insurance costs are over half the cost of a new plane.

The liability laws were such that it was costing many people their lives. The manufacturers of pacemakers and other essential devices like that could not get any suppliers to supply them the needed materials for them since such suppliers would be also liable in any product liability suit. Monsanto had a 25 cent piece of fabric that they supplied to the makers of pacemakers for which Monsanto’s legal dept. advised them NOT to sell to such people. Since by selling that small cheap item, it exposed them to millions of dollars in legal liability which made it impossible to justify selling it. It was only after Congress passed reform bills, that this was corrected. We in aviation noted that it took that to get the laws changed, and that Congress could have cared less about the fact that they killed off the US light aircraft industry, and cost thousands of jobs. Most light aircraft are now produced overseas and in Canada to avoid US laws.

That is why pilots hate lawyers. That is why they are held in such contempt by most people.

He not only sued the airpark owner who had limited funds, but he also sued Piper aircraft for making an unsafe airplane.

Could it be that lawyers and lawsuits are a symptom of the litigious nature of American society, rather than its cause? Don’t lawsuits have to begin with some aggrieved party – usually not a lawyer – deciding to sue?

Thus there is NO assault and battery since both parties willingly engaged in it.

You stated you came armed with items to use as weapons against the marchers, strongly evidencing premeditated criminal intent. You stated the only thing that prevented you from assaulting the marchers was the presense of the police and the knowledge that they would arrest you. Implicit in your statements is the fact that the marchers were marching peacefully. (So much for your being a law abiding citizen.)

which by the way is NOT any kind of assualt and battery

My understanding of California law is that it is illegal to come in physical contact with anyone with the intent to do them harm. I can’t speak to Texas law.

Cuts and bruises do not count.

In California, if blood is drawn during an assault, it is a crime and a gaolable offense.

there is NO assault and battery since both parties willingly engaged in it.

Your statement seems to say that the peaceful marchers had joyfully volunteered to be victims of your assault. That sort of logic may work in Texas courtrooms, but I’ve seen many an attorney get raked over the coals by California judges for much less nincompoopery than this.

“Could it be that lawyers and lawsuits are a symptom of the litigious nature of American society, rather than its cause? Don’t lawsuits have to begin with some aggrieved party – usually not a lawyer – deciding to sue? ”

Chicken and egg? I’m not sure which reall came first, but I think it’s gotten to the point were the wheel keeps going round in round. There are valid suits and there are invalid suits.

There are good lawyers and there are bad lawyers. There are honest lawyers who truly care about their client’s interests and there are those who just want to make a buck. (How’s this for irony? I’m supporting a democrat tort action lawyer for city council over a conservative personal defense lawyer)

In any case the idea that there’s “no such thing” as felony assault is nonsense

Please cite me the felony assault statute with that exact title. I think you might find it hard to find. There is aggravated assualt which is cosidered a felony if one uses a weapon. I speak from experience from my younger ice house days in fighting after a few beers. That used to be a Texas tradition and it was very bad form to use any weapon other than the occassional pool cue.

A buddy of mine got carried away a bit and put a guy in the hospital for a few days with just his fists and feet, but he only got a few weekends in jail for it. Steve once lost a fight, and when he did he was really smashed up and could barely make it to work. Nobody got arrested on that one either since it was just part of the game.

I almost got into trouble in California when I moved there and I had the Texas attitude about fighting. I got into a dispute with a guy who was about my own size and was considering going to a fight status since he hit me slightly. I then realized I was in CA where the rules are a lot different and it would have screwed my career to have gotten arrested for something that would not have been reported in Texas. I had to back off even though I was in the right and the landlord was on my side. I knew that the cops would arrest both of us no matter who was right. That is why I like Texas over CA.

Could it be that lawyers and lawsuits are a symptom of the litigious nature of American society, rather than its cause?

Under US tort law in civil cases, the maker of a product that is found to be dangerous can be sued and all parties to the making of that product are equally liable. In the deep pockets theory as applied in US law, a person who contributes just one percent of material can be held liable for 99% of the damages if they have the deep pockets to pay the judgement. THAT principle makes it very attractive to file suits. The law thus makes it a problem, not actual misconduct on the part of the party who gets to pay the most.

In the Piper case, the pilot violated so many rules and regulations that I don’t have the time to go into them all. Yet that he was able to even file suit is outrageous to me, much less win and put a business out of operation. This is a gross distortion of the law in which the conduct of the pilot was deemed to have no possible bearing on the accident even though his actions were so outlandish. Fortunately, the rule of strict liability has been relaxed for aircraft now and they are only subject to normal liability.

It is not society as a whole that makes such laws since I have heard little debate among most voters as to why strict liability is a good thing. Or why the rules for paying for suits should not be changed. I rather like the British system in which the losing party gets to pay the legal costs of the other party. It would go a long way to cutting down on frivolous lawsuits or harrassing ones and cutting out legal blackmail.

If you have to know Stephen, my weapons were rotten eggs. The Maoists were stupid enough to bring rocks which can be picked up and returned to sender. Even at that rocks don’t qualify as deadly weaponry.

I rather like the British system in which the losing party gets to pay the legal costs of the other party. It would go a long way to cutting down on frivolous lawsuits or harrassing ones and cutting out legal blackmail.

I’d prefer a system where the Judge can decide based on evidence if the lawsuit was frivolous and thus require the plaintiff to pay the costs. Some lawsuits are iffy and a plaintiff shouldn’t have to decide whether to sue or not based on his bankbook not being able to pay for two lawyers.

I’d prefer a system where the Judge can decide based on evidence if the lawsuit was frivolous and thus require the plaintiff to pay the costs.

Judges already have that power. They often throw out cases that are deemed frivilous.

I rather like the British system in which the losing party gets to pay the legal costs of the other party.

That is how the system works in the United States. The loser pays the legal costs of the winner, as those costs are determined by the court.

my weapons were rotten eggs.

Had a thrown rotten egg so much as scratched someone enough to draw even a trickle of blood, that would be a gaolable offense in California.

Texas penal code § 22.01, subsection (b).

The cavalry to the rescue!

That is why I like Texas over CA.

You make Texas sound like a state of lawless ruffians where people can be attacked and beaten up, with few, if any, consequences to the perpetrators. As a gay, Jewish man of colour, why in the world would I ever step foot in such a state? (I’ve been to 42 of the states — I haven’t been to Texas yet.)

Actually John it does NOT make it harder for poor people to get justice. If you have a very good case, a good lawyer will still be able to file a suit on contigency fee basis as they can do now. What it does is to protect all persons, many of them poor from predatory lawsuits filed against them. It will also eliminate the lottery aspect of hitting it big by making a company settle a suit because it would cost them more money in legal expenses than it was worth. Right now a poor person or one of average means can lose all of their property by legal lynching as happened to a friend of mine in CA.

Ray was a retired Navy machinist from San Diego who had bought some property and a mobile home in Yreka, CA. He and his across the street neighbor who was a well off AT&T retired executive got into a dispute. Ray filed a restraining order to keep him off his property and leave him alone The guy refused to do that and came over one day drunk and screaming at Ray. Ray told him to leave and called the sheriff. The guy then went home and hung himself in his garage.

The guys widow then sued Ray for causing her husbands death. He didn’t have the $5000 to defend himself, and so the best he could do was represent himself in court. I left before I could find out how it all turned out, but it did not look good for Ray. I went back years later, and he had gone, so I think I know how it turned out.

There are many other cases where a wealthy individual has filed suit after suit against some people, and they went broke defending these suits. In all of those cases, a law such as the Brits have would put an end to such things. THAT again, is why lawyers are held in such low repute. The lawyers will fight against that tooth and nail.

To bhl, we already have that system in which a judge can throw out a suit for being frivolous. It is hardly ever done in fact. The only time I have ever seen it done is when the defendant has a lot of money and that was in Federal court too. I just got an update on a court suit in which I am interested in and a Federal judge granted declaratory judgement, wrongly I think, for the defendant. In CA, they almost never throw such a suit out and judges let them go on and on. If you countersue, you can get costs, but doing that costs MORE money as Ray found out. It would have cost him a cool $10,000 to do that in conjunction with defending himself and that would also have been a crap shoot since it is very hard to simply get costs alone without proof of further damages.

I see that John also has the bad habit of taking quotes out of context and leaving off inconvenient phrases that he does not like.

TRINIDAD, Calif. (AP) – A Trinidad man was arrested this morning after allegedly assaulting two people by repeatedly throwing rocks at them.

Authorities say he even hit 1 of them with a rock-filled T-shirt.

Lorenzo Erickson had allegedly been involved in a fight with his girlfriend and her brother. Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman Brenda Godsey says Erickson struck the woman with his rock-filled t-shirt and then knocked her brother down with another large stone to the chest.

Both victims were treated for their injuries at a local hospital.

Erickson was booked on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon, domestic violence and vandalism.

I am learing to fly and I have seen no evidence to suggest that ALL PILOTS hate ALL LAWYERS. Especially since many of the privately owned planes at our local airports are owned and operated by lawyers.

If you have a very good case, a good lawyer will still be able to file a suit on contigency fee basis as they can do now.

If filing a suit means that you may be on the hook for the other party’s legal costs, you’re less likely to do it. Which is, I believe, why you like the idea, but it works both ways; if you’ve got deep pockets you are more likely to take that risk, and you don’t, you’re less likely.

I see that John also has the bad habit of taking quotes out of context and leaving off inconvenient phrases that he does not like.

You know what, Randy? If you can’t take the anger/attack level down a notch or two, please just don’t comment.

John, most legally frivolous lawsuits are not filed by lawyers since they know that such suits will be thrown out. So it is usually the case that those seeking to cash in with a lawsuit against a company, will use a good lawyer who knows how to make the suit proof against such a ruling. The latitude is so great as granted by judges, that such blackmail suits go forward.

The case against my friend in CA is an example of this.

By having the losing party pay for the legal costs of the winning side, my friend would have no problem getting a lawyer to defend himself since he would not be out any money from his own pocket. The ones with deep pockets will still be able to file suits, but with this system, the only thing the poor lose, is their time, not their money or property if they are the defendant. Weak or speculative cases will not be able to be filed by those with less money, and will cut down on the legal lottery system that we have now. As I mentioned, such suits ended light aircraft production in this country. The US is the only country which has this system and that is why most light aircraft are made in other countries now.

The wealthy under any system will still have the advantages, but at least we will get a more level playing field. All you have to do is to look at the many suits that are filed and won on very weak cases, to see the problems. In the case which put Piper out of business, the jury was swayed more by the condition of the plaintiff than the law, yet I am not advocating getting rid of juries, just making the lawsuits that are filed less likely in such outlandish cases. A wealthy person will still be able to file such suits though, but maybe less likely.

As I pointed out, Cessna used to settle all lawsuits rather than go to trial since the cost of defending themselves was more costly than settling. Just how would you stop this kind of thing if you don’t like that idea? Cessna made the easiest and safest planes to fly, and virtually almost all the the accidents involving them were pilot error. Yet Cessna had to pay for the pilots errors, not theirs. I don’t think that is fair or equitable. Do you? What would you suggest instead? I think the Brits have a good idea and can be adopted since we have the same kind of legal system.

Stephen glad to see that CA may be getting better legally. I hope that means that one can open fire with a gun on a person throwing rocks at you then since they are deadly weapons. Of course that also means that the Border Patrol may now open fire on illegals who are doing the same to them too. It also makes what the Israelis do at rock throwers justifiable when they open fire. Way to go!

I have been involved in a number of fights over my lifetime, and I have yet to be arrested or even charged. Nor have I ever filed them when I got the worst of it. I did get suspended from Houston CC when I was getting my A&P license after retiring from the refinery. I beat up a fellow student who was a crook and he ran to the administration crying about it. I went home, called the President of the College, told him I was getting a lawyer and filing a lawsuit and told him my story. He told me to hold off and he would look into it. He called back later, told me I was re-instated with full credit for all the time lost, and the other guy was expelled. I was rather hoping the crook would file charges against me or try to since he would have gone back to prison when I would have demanded a search warrant for his place. He of course knew better than to flie charges. I was also hoping he would file a civil suit as well, but he never did.

That also put an end to my ever again giving an ex-con a second chance. I have done my good Samaratin bit, and I later found out, the Houston cops thought that I was part of his crew since I was just giving him a ride to school every day.

Also, glad to see that Stephen is doing something good with his time and money in learning to fly. Are you out of Lindberg? I made the TV news a few months back there when I lost all hydraulic fluid and had to extend the gear manually and lost all nose wheel steering, flaps, and declared an emergency. When I got to the hotel, I got to see myself and plane on the news. I tried to taxi back to the GA area using differntial power and brakes, but the brakes faded and I had to take a tow back. At least I cleared the taxiway and got out of the way of the rest of the planes.

As for pilots hating lawyers, I should have said most professional pilots. I date myself since I remember the golden years of aviation when the lawsuits were not so numerous and debilitating. The newer guys do not remember the better times. As for lawyers being pilots, I have had some very bad experiences with them as pilots. I suppose there are some very good lawyer pilots, but unfortunately, I have not run into them. I know that they are out there somewhere and F.Lee Bailey cannot be the only one. Doctors have the same problem in being pilots as lawyers. There is even one plane we call the forktailed doctor killer. Ask your flight instructor about that one and why.

we already have that system in which a judge can throw out a suit for being frivolous. It is hardly ever done in fact.

This is just such an idiotic statement! I googled the following four references on my first and only search. Imagine what I could have dug up had I logged into a legal database and searched for “dismissed case?” Even excluding criminal cases, the numbers of cases thrown out by American courts every year is staggering — their remains litter our newspapers on a regular basis.

“THE FORMER executive director of the now-defunct Terrace Tourism Society (TTS) is appealing the dismissal of her civil suit against her former employer.”

“A former Greenville County deputy, arrested for DUI, could soon get his job back. Sgt. David Morrow was pulled over by a highway patrol trooper back in October. Morrow, then a deputy for the Greenville County Sheriff’s Office, passed a field sobriety test, but was still arrested. Monday, Magistrate Mark Edmonds dismissed the case against Morrow, saying it “lacked probable cause” to go to a jury trial.”

Cessna refused to even restart their production line for the US Air Force when they asked them to resume production for the T-41 which was the primary plane for their student pilots, which was a militarized version of their popular C-172.

As for pilots hating lawyers, I should have said most professional pilots.

How many professional pilots fly a Skyhawk for a living? Not very many.

The Skyhawk is the most used aircraft, in America, for training non professional pilots. It is the most rented aircraft, by non professional pilots. And it is probably the most non professionally owned plane in America.

With a maximum range of only 750 statute miles, a top speed of only 128 knots, and a maximum cargo/fuel payload of 900 lbs, the Skyhawk is not very useful, in most of the continental United States, for the kinds of work professional pilots do, e.g., hauling passengers and/or cargo. (Excepting, of course, professional pilots training new pilots and ferrying rental planes from airport to airport.)

Stephen we were talking about civil suits, not criminal cases. You should have looked at frivilous lawsuits and seen what it said. Lawyers try to make sure that their suits are not thrown out as frivolous. Dismissal is another thing entirely from that. Both sides get to state their case before a judge, and he decides whether or not it has merit. You need a lawyer at that hearing if you wish to have a chance. I was talking about suits that are frivolous and should have been thrown out before the hearing. That is rather rare when using an attorney. There are plenty of suits that are filed by laymen that are tossed for being frivolous.

I was a witness in an EEOC suit against Exxon which was dismissed. I think that the judge was way off, but that was his ruling. The suit had far more merit than most of the ones that have made the news. The judge had little but prejudice to decide the case and I read the judgement and saw plenty of errors of fact. Of course, this was in Texas, and I was not too surprised. We are considering an appeal and I hope that the guys go for it.

That’s actually a matter of opinion. In my opinion, it is the frivolous criminal cases and the ones where the District Attorney KNOWS the defendant to be innocent that are objectionable. Despite the many such cases in this country, few people complain about all these lawsuits and the billions of dollars they cost municipalities in tort actions.

Lawyers try to make sure that their suits are not thrown out as frivolous.

Lawyers are unlikely to take a case they know to be frivolous. If an attorney can’t make a suit good enough to pass muster, they’ll generally drop it. Attorney self-interest keeps many frivolous lawsuits from reaching a judge.

There are plenty of suits that are filed by laymen that are tossed for being frivolous.

Most laypersons, and many attorneys, are ill trained to determine the difference between a frivolous and a serious lawsuit. Most laypersons, and many attorneys, lack the experience to properly prepare a case for presentation. (Not all attorneys are trial lawyers.)

I have often been astonished to arrive in court against a client’s attorney only to find they have a single folder of 10-15 documents containing all their evidence. While I often show up with more than 10,000 pages of evidence to support our case. Knowing how to prepare a case for court can be 90% of the battle.

I think that the judge was way off

Our judicial system has checks and balances to offset unjust rulings. That is one of the beauties of the liberal institutions that underpin our democracy. The courts function as a way to resolve disputes within society. It is often better to let a dispute wend its way through the courts, giving everyone a thorough hearing, than it is to cut it off at the pass.

Another point of merit: few laypersons are truly equiped to determine whether a lawsuit is frivolous or not. A famous case-in-point is the lawsuit by the woman who was burnt by McDonald’s coffee that was too hot. Many think this a frivolous lawsuit. I do not! This lawsuit sent a clear message to corporate America and secured consumers an important NEW right. It’s not only about selling someone coffee so hot that drinking it can hospitalize them. It’s about not selling products to customers that can cause them hospitalization without plenty of clear warnings of the danger. (Before this incident, it never occurred to me that I could be hospitalized by a cup of McDonald’s coffee, even had it been spilt on me.)

In this particular case, two items made this a non frivolous lawsuit. First, the plaintiff sufferred actual, physical harm, and had the right to her day in court to try and prove that McDonald’s was responsible for the harm she came to. Second, the court saw an important legal principle that it wanted to highlight: corporations must warn consumers when their products can but them in physical danger.

Civil lawsuits are our number one method of securing and enforcing our rights and consumer protections. Do not buy corporate America’s propaganda to limit so called “frivolous” lawsuits. It’s all about convincing us to give up our primary means of protecting ourselves from corporate avarice.